The antral follicle count predicts the outcome of pregnancy in a controlled ovarian hyperstimulation/intrauterine insemination program
Antral follicle count, decreasing with age, predicted dominant follicle count and pregnancy success in women undergoing controlled ovarian hyperstimulation/intrauterine insemination.
One-sentence paraphrase of the abstract; not a substitute for reading it. No clinical advice. How this works
The study evaluated whether early follicular-phase antral follicle counts predict pregnancy outcomes in a controlled ovarian hyperstimulation/intrauterine insemination (COH/IUI) program, enrolling 107 women including healthy controls, women with unexplained infertility, and 19 with minimal endometriosis. Transvaginal ultrasound was used to count total antral follicles (2–8 mm) and dominant follicles, and associations with age, estradiol on the day of hCG, and pregnancy and OHSS rates were analyzed. Antral follicle numbers declined with age, pregnant women had higher antral and dominant follicle counts, and estradiol on hCG day increased with antral and dominant follicle numbers; pregnancy rate rose with antral follicle count in women under 35 but was low in women over 35 regardless of follicle count, with no pregnancies when antral follicles were fewer than five. A key limitation stated by the authors’ framing is that the COH/IUI approach was not indicated for women older than 35 or with very low antral follicle counts, implying limited applicability of the predictive model outside those strata. This paper includes women with minimal endometriosis as part of the studied infertility population, providing relevance to endometriosis: minimal endometriosis was an explicit participant group in the COH/IUI cohort, though the main analyses focus on age and antral follicle counts rather than endometriosis-specific effects.
Read from the paper's body, not the abstract. Not a substitute for reading the paper. No clinical advice. How this works
Abstract
Full text
5,999 characters
· extracted from
oa-doi-fallback
· 5 sections
· click to expand
Abstract
Methods
Results
Conclusions
References
Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below. Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy (via DOI) is the canonical version.
My notes (saved in your browser only)
Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works
Condition tags
MeSH descriptors
Citation neighborhood (no data yet)
We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. The paper's references may be in our DB but unresolved to ``paper_id`` (resolution happens at ingest when the cited DOI matches a row we already have). Run the cross-source citation reconcile pass to retry.
Source provenance
- europepmc
- last seen: 2026-08-24T06:08:07.662257+00:00
- pubmed
- last seen: 2026-05-13T22:10:46.468712+00:00
- unpaywall
- last seen: 2026-05-14T19:30:52.867331+00:00
Courtesy of the U.S. National Library of Medicine